Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Department of Justice
Name: M , S A A 071
Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-referenced case.
Sincerely,
Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
Enclosure
Panel Members:
Pauley, Roger
Creppy, Michael J.
Mullane, Hugh G.
'·;·
Userteam: Docket
APPEAL
The respondent, a native and citizen of Jamaica, appeals from the Immigration Judge's decision
dated June 27, 2017,1 finding him removable as an aggravated felon under sections 10l(a)(43)(U)
and 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the "Act"), 8 U.S.C.
§§ l10l(a)(43)(U), 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), and pretermitting his application for cancellation of
removal under section 240A(a) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a). The record will be remanded.
The Immigration Judge found without clear error that on March 20, 2015, the respondent was
convicted of conspiracy under Maryland common law to possess marijuana in a sufficient quantity
to indicate an intent to distribute (IJ at 3; Exhs. 1, 3). The respondent admitted that on June 21,
2016, he was convicted of solicitation to possess under 2 pounds of marijuana for sale under
sections 13-1002 and 13-3405(A)(2) of the Arizona Revised Statutes (IJ at 3; Exh. lA). According
to the conviction documents, the respondent committed the Arizona offense on September 22,
2015, more than 7 years after his admission to the United States (IJ at 2; Exh. 3). The Immigration
Judge relied only on the respondent's Maryland conviction as a basis for his decision, and only
addressed the aggravated felony charge in his decision (U at 5).
However, the respondent contends on appeal that his Maryland conspiracy conviction does not
constitute an aggravated felony under sections 10l(a)(43)(U) and 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Act, and
that he would be eligible for cancellation of removal if found removable on other grounds. The
Department of Homeland Security (the "DHS") argues that the result of the Immigration Judge's
decision is correct for reasons other than those stated in his decision. The DHS contends that the
respondent's convictions qualify as two crimes involving moral turpitude and that the respondent
is ineligible for cancellation of removal because his accrual of continuous physical presence was
1 The Immigration Judge's oral decision issued on June 27, 2017, incorporated his written decision
("IJ") also dated June 27, 2017, which provided additional analysis.
Cite as: S-A-M-, AXXX XXX 071 (BIA Dec. 6, 2017)
. 071
.
"....
interrupted by the commission of the Maryland offense triggering a "reason to believe" the
respondent was an illicit trafficker in a controlled substance.
We agree that the respondent's Maryland offense does not qualify as a "U" aggravated felony,
as charged, because conspiracy under Maryland common law does not require an overt act, which
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit requires for an aggravated felony
Remand is appropriate for the Immigration Judge to consider the remaining removal charges
in the first instance and, if the respondent is determined to be removable as charged, to adjudicate
the respondent's application for cancellation of removal.2 To the extent that the respondent's
conspiracy offense may support a "reason to believe" that he is or has been an illicit trafficker in
a controlled substance, additional factfinding would be necessary to determine when "appropriate
immigration officials" became aware of the offense, so as to determine ifthe respondent's period
of continuous residence could have been interrupted by inadmissibility based on such a "reason to
believe."3 See Gomez-Granillo v. Holder, 654 F.3d 826, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011). Accordingly, the
following order will be entered.
ORDER: The appeal is sustained and the record of proceedings is remanded for further
proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion and entry of a new decision.
2 Inchoate illicit trafficking offenses, even without an overt act, may still constitute crimes
involving moral turpitude under section 237(a)(2)(A) of the Act. See Matter of Gonzalez Romo,
26 I&N Dec. 743, 748 (BIA 2016); Barragan-Lopez v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 899, 903-04 (9th Cir.
2007).
3 In this respect, the Immigration Judge may also consider, if necessary, whether an offense that
gives rise to an appropriate immigration official's "reason to believe" under section 212(a)(2)(C)(i)
qualifies as "an offense referred to in section 212(a)(2) that renders the alien inadmissible," thereby
stopping the accrual of continuous residence under section 240A(d)(1)(B) of the Act. See Matter
of Campos-Torres, 22 I&N Dec. at 1295.
In the Matter of
)
S A M ) IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS
)
RESPONDENT )
1
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: KATHRYN E. STAPLES, Esquire
Law Offices of Matthew Green
130 West Cushing Street
Tucson, Arizona 85701
This matter first came before the Court on the 7th of March 2016. The
Department of Homeland Security filed with this Court a Notice to Appear. See Exhibit
1 herein. That document made the following factual allegations: 1) that the respondent
Jamaica and a citizen of Jamaica, 3) that his status was adjusted to that of a conditional
resident (CR6) on April 14, 2012, under Section 245 of the Act. Factual allegation four
alleged that on the 29th of October 2014 the conditions were removed from
respondent's permanent residency. Factual allegation five was that the respondent was
on the 20th of March, 2015, convicted in the district court Prince George's county,
Maryland, for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana in violation of the
Based upon those factual allegations the Department charged that the
respondent was removable pursuant to Section 237(a)(2)(B) of the Act, that any time
after admission conviction of violating any law or regulation of the state or the United
States relating to a controlled substance other than a single offense involving 30 grams
or less of marijuana as well as removability under Section 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Act for
substances described in Section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act. That document
administratively closed by this Court because the respondent was facing additional
Security's custody and on the 18th of May the respondent was back in court where he
261 had one additional factual allegation. That is that the respondent was on the 21st
of June 2016 convicted in the Arizona Superior Court, Pima County, for solicitation to
possess marijuana for sale having a weight of less than two pounds, a class four felony
September 22, 2015, for which the respondent was sentenced to one year
incarceration.
The respondent with regard to the pleadings admitted factual allegations one
through four on the original Notice to Appear, denied factual allegation five, denied the
regard to the 261 the respondent admitted the conviction alleged in factual allegation six
indicated that he would be seeking relief in the form of cancellation of removal. Exhibit
The Department, when it heard this, indicated that they believed that the
respondent was not eligible so the Court set a Briefing schedule requiring the
Court allowed Ms. Staples to respond and those documents are also contained in this
only form of relief, and the Court's decision on it is dispositive in this case. As the Court
has said, the Court required of the Department of Homeland Security a written motion
That is in Exhibit 6 and the Court provided to the parties today Exhibit 7, which is the
Court's decision with regard to the motion to pretermit so those are all exhibits in this
matter. The Court in essence is agreeing with the Department. That is that the
respondent is not statutorily eligible for the requested relief for the reasons set forth in
The respondent has indicated that he will be appealing the Court's decision and
he will have 30 days from the receipt of the Court's written decision to do so. However,
as the Court has said for the decisions set forth in the motion to pretermit, which
essentially agreed with the Department that the respondent has been convicted of an
aggravated felony and further the criminal offenses engaged the stop time rule which
preclude the respondent from accruing the statutory required amount of time. It is set
forth in its entirety as the Court has said in Exhibit 7. The respondent is not eligible for
any other forms of relief nor is he seeking any forms of relief. Therefore, the following
ORDER
States to Jamaica on the charge that the Court has sustained against him.
signature
JOHN W. DAVIS
Immigration Judge